Honolulu Weekly Gets a Scoop on Draft FEIS, Says Content Is Consistent with City’s Statements

Taking a cue from movie ads and their selective quotes from film reviews, here's our summary of Honolulu Weekly's story today on its reading of the draft Final Environmental Impact Statement on Honolulu Rail:

“Amid political name-calling, sensational headlines and evasive officials offering little beyond canned quotations..., the (FEIS) document (is) consistent with what City officials have said.”

That pretty much clears it up, wouldn’t you say?

Of course, we did leave out about 200 words from the lead-in to the Weekly’s article on the FEIS, which the newspaper obtained (ahead of the Honolulu dailies) through a Freedom of Information Act request to the Federal government.

Going right to the essence: According to the Weekly, City officials have been saying exactly what’s so about the rail line’s routing near Honolulu International Airport. (See last week’s “view with alarm” Honolulu Advertiser coverage of this issue, which is linked from our Yes2Rail posts below.)

There’s lots more, of course. The paper highlights the major issues and compares the 2008 Draft EIS with the Final, which as summarized by HW comes across in a matter-of-fact way without a hint of obfuscation.

Now we wait to see how the dailies react to being scooped by Honolulu Weekly again.

No Apparent Urgency To Duck 'n Cover or Head for Hills: Revenue Picture Brightens for Oahu Hotels

Didn’t rail’s opponents say the economic slump would last forever and doom the project? “Look around! We can’t afford it!” they’ve been shouting for months.

What happened? What happened is what always happens. The economy is turning around in a cycle that’s as sure to happen as the tides. That’s the way it’s always been and always will be.

The latest news: Oahu hotels will see a healthy 7.2-percent increase in revenue per available room this year, according to a new forecast by PFK Hospitality Research.

The hyper-active opponents will be creative in spinning this, of course, and we’ll all do well to ignore them.

Airport Space Plan Was Years Out of Date

Today’s Sean Hao special has over 750 words in it, but you have to read about 650 of them before you come to this:

"According to the state DOT, the city based its initial analysis of the impacts of rail on an outdated airport layout plan. That plan was drafted in the mid-1990s and had not been updated to reflect a 1994 change in runway protection zones."

That seems to be more than a little interesting. Several questions:

• Exactly how long had the plan been out of date?

• Who is responsible for updating the plan?

• What is the requirement to update the plan?

• Did the outdated plan leave safety issues unaddressed?

• When was the plan eventually rewritten?

• What does the FAA say about the failure to update the plan?

• Is the failure to update the plan responsible for the current confusion about rail's alignment near the airport?

Based on the buried lead of this story, maybe this is a better headline: Airport space plan was years out of date

The State Department of Transportation presumably is responsible for the plan's upkeep, but we don't know for sure, because the Advertiser's reporter apparently didn't ask these questions and seems not to care.

Advertiser Strains to Headline Unremarkable Fact In Another Story that Models Seinfeld’s Puffy Shirt

“State: City must pay to move runways” is the headline on the Advertiser’s rail story today. It looks like a front-runner for the Unremarkable News of the Year award.

Isn’t it obvious the City will pay for rail-related costs? It’s a City project!

The story’s play is another example of a pattern that’s pretty clear. Advertiser news editors and reporters are going out of their way to cover rail with a “view with alarm” style of journalism that we've noted here repeatedly (keep reading below this post).

Unremarkable facts are played on page one in overly long stories that often quote only rail critics, as this one does. How hard could it be to find a pro-rail source within the City Council or administration to add balance?

And what are we to make of the Star-Bulletin? The paper’s rail coverage rarely approaches the Advertiser’s tone. Is that evidence of lazy journalism, or is it be a sign of professionalism?

Which brings us to Seinfeld’s puffy shirt. This isn’t the first time we've thought the Advertiser’s rail stories often seem overblown, as famously described by Elaine in a Seinfeld episode: “You’re all puffed up!”

Gather a few unremarkable facts, string them together and slap the story on page one, and that’s what you get.

Shapiro Column Tightens Paper’s ‘Closed Loop’

First came Saturday’s incomplete view-with-alarm story on the rail route’s temporary issue near Honolulu International Airport. City Transportation Services Director Wayne Yoshioka’s letter to the editor in today’s Advertiser calls that story “inaccurate.”

Next came yesterday’s editorial, which was based on Saturday’s story and therefore mirrored its view-with-alarm assessment. We described this process as a “closed information loop” – an editorial based entirely on the paper’s inaccurate news story.

Dave Shapiro’s Volcanic Ash column today tightens that loop and slams the City while giving the Governor a free pass – even though his last paragraph seems to refute what he wrote in the preceeding graf. (She's moving "briskly" in starting a financial review now even though she's had the Draft FEIS for three months?)

For an accurate assessment of what’s going on with the rail route at the airport, read Yoshioka’s letter -- and step out of the Advertiser’s closed loop.

Old Computer Problem Infects Paper’s Editorial

You don’t hear it much anymore – “garbage in, garbage out.” It’s so 1980s.

But that’s what you get when an editorial writer relies on coverage by the newspaper’s own agenda-driver reporter to build its opinion piece. Such seems to be the result in today's Honolulu Advertiser lead editorial.

We’ve previously noted reporter Sean Hao’s inaccuracies, narrow fact selection and “view with alarm” style of journalism here. His most recent gotcha article attempted to show that the City was slow to recognize a potential rail route problem near Honolulu International Airport.

We suspect there’s much more to this story that Hao has selectively chosen not to report or didn't try hard enough to learn – information that will show no such thing. We may not read it in the Advertiser, however, since the City's effort to shed more light on inter-agency dialogue could make negotiations on the airport issue even more difficult.

The bottom line: By sole-sourcing information for its editorial today, the Advertiser is operating in a closed information loop – basing its editorial viewpoint on a shaky reporting foundation. The old advice is still relevant: Let the buyer – and reader – beware.

Airport Rail Route Subject of Talks with FAA

We’re reminded in a front-page story in today’s Advertiser that the rail line’s routing near Honolulu International Airport may require some adjustments due to the proximity of two runways that end a thousand feet or less from the alignment.

In typical “view with alarm” style, the story casts a shadow over the project, but as usual, reading deep into the story reveals the situation to be far less alarming.

One of our posts in January 2009 noted the City Council’s vote to redirect the route to the airport. That same post also said the comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement would be open for another week.

Personally, I’m looking forward to seeing what comments were submitted about the near-airport route after the City Council’s decision, and by whom.

Houston Bus Crashes into At-Grade Train -- Again

Bus meets train today in Houston.

There’s been yet another bus-train crash on the Houston, TX at-grade rail system (video available here). It happened this afternoon at the same intersection where a bus ran a red light in early February, sending 9 to the hospital. Today’s crash more than doubled the number of injured.

Continuing the thought we started in our earlier post today, Honolulu’s elevated rail system will restore mobility to our citizens. But as today's crash shows, Houston’s citizens don’t enjoy the same assurance of mobility that we will have when our rail system is built.

That’s because their mobility evaporates with every crash. Just ask the riders of Houston’s rail system if they reached their destinations on time today. They most assuredly did not if their trains were halted by the crash.

Unfortunately, the 19 injured passengers lost more than their mobility.

This Just In: 4 Angels Can Dance on a Pin, and Advertiser Is Still Focusing on the Wrong Thing

Reading today’s rail story in the Advertiser reminded us again of the question asked by medieval scholars: “How many angels can dance on the head of the pin?”

Thanks to the Internet, we have the answer: Formerly there was no limit, but new OSHA regulations set the number at four and require twice-annual inspections of the pin to detect structural defects.

Nowadays people on a quest for knowledge can ask questions like, “How many jobs will be created by the Honolulu rail project?” I suppose that’s important to economists and number crunchers, but getting stuck on that question is as crazy as counting angels.

It’s About M-O-B-I-L-I-T-Y

Rail detractors say the project is just about unions, campaign contributions and jobs, so an overly long story on somebody’s lower prediction of the job total plays right into their hands.

Let’s keep the focus on rail’s true purpose – restoring mobility to our community. We’ve lost our mobility. It’s no longer possible to move through our community and be certain we won’t be impeded by traffic congestion.

Only grade-separated transit offers that certainty, and grade-separated projects – elevated or underground – have restored mobility to cities around the world.

Honolulu’s elevated rail system will do the same here. Yes, of course, naturally, without a doubt: Jobs will be created, and if you bother to read far enough into today’s Sean Hao Special, you’ll see that the deputy project manager believes the number will be in the same 10,000 range that’s in the Draft EIS.

So can we please stop fixating on how many angels will be employed on this project!?

Rail’s FEIS Issues Coming to a Head This Week

This blog’s five-day break since the most recent post mirrors the delay of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the City’s rail project. Both can be explained (charitably) by circumstances almost beyond the control of the participants.

Preparations for the March 28 memorial service for Cec Heftel, former Hawaii congressman and broadcaster extraordinaire from coast to coast and beyond, have eaten up quite a few of our hours, but at least there’s a future date certain when everything will come together.

That isn’t the case for the City. It seems the Federal Aviation Administration has held up review of the FEIS, as described in today’s Advertiser.

Federal officials will be in Honolulu this week to focus on the statement’s status, and the public undoubtedly will learn the “true facts” about the holdup that apparently involve the FAA.

Even after adjustments to the rail plan that will satisfy that agency, then there’s the approval process involving the Governor. It’s anybody’s guess how long that will take.

It’s also anybody’s guess how long the commute during rush hours will take a decade from now if the rail project isn't built. With rail, the travel time will be explicitly known each and every time a commuter boards the train. Without it, the delays could be grossly greater than today as both the population and vehicle numbers grow.

We trust the Governor’s concerns about the project’s finances will be satisfied and we won’t have to experience what travel would be like in this city without an alternative to traffic congestion.

City MD’s Response Covers Elevated Rail’s Pluses

Blogger Ian Lind seems surprised the City would want to respond to his commentary on Hawaii Public Radio lauding at-grade rail. Of course a response was indicated, inasmuch as Lind appears to have swallowed the AIA’s transit stance hook, line and pole.

Managing Director Kirk Caldwell’s equal time response was aired yesterday in the same time slot on KHPR. Listen to the entire commentary (less than 2:30) if you have time, but if you’re pressed, focus on this:

"Elevated rail will deliver commuters to their destinations far quicker than trains running at ground level in the mix of other traffic, red lights, pedestrians and cross streets. A faster train will be more successful, because it will be more attractive to potential riders than slower surface rail."

If the City doesn’t build a system that attracts riders, it truly will be stuck with the white elephant the AIA fears so much. It’s ironic that the chapter's self-described urban planners have fallen so hard for a concept sure to fail.

That’s why the City has relied on transit planners to design its transit system.

And the At-Grade Rail Crash Video Nominees Are:

It’s Oscar weekend, so let’s settle back and watch some short subjects – videos of at-grade rail crashes over the years. This compilation focuses primarily on systems in Houston, TX and Phoenix, AZ, cities that dominate the category, although they’re not alone.

It’s a sobering subject, and we’re not making light of the property damage, injuries and deaths that occur when light rail transit at ground level interacts with vehicles and pedestrians.

Some in Honolulu continue to propose the at-grade concept, so it’s entirely appropriate to highlight this significant safety deficiency of at-grade rail.

Both Phoenix and Houston are still working on how to avoid collisions with their at-grade trains, so don’t be surprised if these cities are among next year’s nominees, too.

Ever Notice How Critics of the City’s Elevated Rail System Never Stand Up to At-Grade Rail's Issues?

You can write about the deficiencies of at-grade rail until your fingers bleed, and some vocal proponents of ground-level service will never even respond to the challenge to debate them.

They can’t be drawn into discussing at-grade rail’s slow pace compared to elevated rail, its less frequent and less reliable service and, yes, its relatively poor safety record.

Point them toward the crash-a-week experience of Phoenix’s at-grade system in its first year and their reaction is, “Phoenix? I know nothing about Phoenix.”

Mention the higher operating costs of at-grade rail due to the driver requirement (unlike automated elevated rail) and they’ll feign deafness. Or remind them at-grade rail has tremendous impacts on the neighborhoods it passes through and they’ll ignore that, too.

Tell them less frequent and slower at-grade train service won’t be successful in pulling people out of their cars and they’ll change the subject.

What Conflict?

For example, they’ll complain backers of the City’s elevated plan (like this blogger) have a "conflict of interest" without explaining what that conflict is. (See some of the comments below Yes2Rail’s March 1 post or at the link in the first graf above.)

What kind of a “conflict” can there be when my consultancy to the City to promote Honolulu's proposed rail system is displayed clearly at the top of this page and every new post? The critics' reasoning seems obtuse, and maybe it's because they just don’t understand the "conflict of interest" concept. ("We disagree; therefore, you conflict with my interest." Is that it?)

So here’s an open invitation to critics of the City’s rail system: Address the above deficiencies of your so-called at-grade alternative one by one. Try to convince someone in the middle of this argument that you’ve got it right and we proponents of elevated rail have it wrong. Tell us exactly why relatively slow, relatively inefficient, relatively unreliable and relatively crash-prone rail is what Honolulu needs.

It’s a simple challenge. Accept it, and for once, don’t change the subject.
********
7 pm Update: It's been 14 hours since we issued this challenge, and not one at-grade proponent has seen fit to respond. No surprise.

********

7 am 3/5 Update: 26 hours later and still no takers.

Blogger’s Rail Commentary Just an AIA Rehash

Where have you been, Ian Lind? Perhaps the most successful blogger in Hawaii (his blog’s counter reports nearly 1.8 million visitors), Lind’s commentary on Hawaii Public Radio this morning was surprisingly naïve (it's available at HPR's website).

That’s his word, as in the “Perhaps I’m naïve….” phrase in his commentary. But we have to agree; Lind’s piece seems “fresh off the boat” and suggests no exposure to why the American Institute of Architects Hawaii chapter's at-grade rail proposal won’t serve Honolulu’s needs.

For example, Lind asked in his piece why flexible light rail couldn’t be built elevated where appropriate and at-grade elsewhere. The reasons have been exhaustively discussed in the Draft EIS at the project's website, in community meetings, in the mainstream media and in numerous online sites, including Yes2Rail.

At-grade wouldn’t be as fast, wouldn’t be as reliable, wouldn’t be as safe and wouldn’t be nearly as successful as an elevated system. We won’t go into the details in today's post, but they’re covered here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here, among other posts.

More Like Propaganda

Asking the question in the manner he did is almost inexplicable for someone who enjoys a reputation as an investigative journalist from when he reported for the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. It’s somewhat shocking for his commentary to come off as AIA propaganda.

The material covers the same old AIA territory – the ridiculous assertion that architects were denied the opportunity to provide input on rail both early and late (a cover story for being asleep at the switch), the City’s alleged bullying and ramrod mentality, politics driving the project, the selection of “old” steel-on-steel technology, etc.

We doubt Lind reads Yes2Rail, but if he does now, let’s hope he takes time to read these three lengthy posts that essentially accuse the AIA of deliberately misleading the public on the environmental impact process, the relative speed of at-grade rail vs elevated and the safety issue.

Lind seems cozily in bed with a minority of local architects who see the rail project only through their visual aesthetics filter. That’s too narrow a perspective to guide the planning for a vital transportation project that will provide an alternative to traffic congestion for decades to come.

Just As Honolulu Rail Coverage Seems Balanced, Honolulu on Brink of Having Just One Daily

As we said here five days ago:

“Rail coverage by Honolulu’s two newspapers reminds us once again why it’s so important to be a two-newspaper city. One continues to splash rail stories that have remarkably little heft to them, while the other seems content to report on the process without contributing hysteria.”

Guess which one looks almost certain to go out of business.

Shock is the most common reaction we’ve heard to the news that the Honolulu Star-Bulletin is acquiring the Honolulu Advertiser from Gannett Corporation. Honolulu has been the country’s only major city with competing daily newspapers, but that seems about to change.

Both papers treat the news as the blockbuster it is in today's editions, and dozens of employees in the newspapers' newsrooms, back shops, advertising and circulation departments now face troubling days ahead about whether they’ll have jobs much longer.

What of Rail Coverage?

Their concerns trump just about any others, but we can’t help comment here that the implications for the Honolulu rail project are not inconsequential. Our February 21 post focused on the “all puffed up” stories (think Jerrry Seinfeld’s puffy shirt) on page one of the Advertiser, whose news hole (unlike the editorial page) seems devoted to the “view with alarm” school of journalism.

Like many other days, the Star-Bulletin carried nary a word about that which bothered the Advertiser so much last Sunday – concerns that seem laughable when you take time to think through those stories' topics.

Even if the Bulletin is purchased by an outsider and survives, we’ll be watching to see whether the Advertiser’s coverage of rail becomes more rational, more accurate and less alarmist about rail issues in general under its new ownership – which under the sale's terms will be the current Star-Bulletin’s management. One can hope.

AIA ‘Spinning’ Extends to its Own Internal Survey; More Said They Favor Elevated Rail than At-Grade!

We focus so much attention here on the American Institute of Architects Hawaii Chapter’s credibility because Governor Linda Lingle seems to be relying on the AIA so much. Her official website devotes considerable space to the AIA presentation on January 18 that she hosted in the State Capitol. (The links to Governor Lingle's website became obsolete when her successor took office.)

Should the Governor be concerned about the AIA’s representations? We think so and have posted three times in the past week on statements made on a local public television program by an AIA member a week ago tonight.

We called attention to apparent willful misrepresentations about the environmental impact process, the speed of at-grade trains and the dangers to other vehicle traffic when rail is built at-grade.

Today we’re going back to perhaps the biggest AIA misrepresentation of them all. The local chapter surveyed its membership last June with an emailed poll. To bolster the chapter’s campaign against Honolulu’s planned elevated rail system, here’s how its website spins the results:

“A total of 90/144 member responses (62.5%) favored either at-grade or below grade through the downtown urban core. A total of 41/144 members (28.4%) indicated their preference for elevated rail through the urban core.”

What the summary doesn’t tell you – but clicking on the actual survey results does – is that more AIA members said they favored elevated rail than at-grade rail – 28.5% for elevated and 24.3% for at-grade. And if “spinning” is the issue, you can make the case that 68.7% favor a grade-separated solution over ground-level rail.

Using this survey's results, the AIA chapter has gone to the public with a misinformation campaign favoring at-grade rail (see referenced Yes2Rail posts, above) even though the poll showed lower support for at-grade rail than the other two alternatives!

That's why the Governor is urged to use caution in evaluating what the AIA chapter is communicating to her and the community. More than ever, it’s obvious the at-grade campaign is championed by a small minority within the chapter that is intent on confusing the public about the most important construction project in the state’s history.

AIA Once Again Misrepresents and Ignores Higher Danger to Street Traffic Posed by At-Grade Transit

Today’s post continues the dissection of last Thursday’s “Insights on PBS Hawaii” television panel discussion on Honolulu’s rail project. We previously looked at the American Institute of Architects (AIA) representative’s statements about the Environmental Impact Statement process and how he was contradicted by three others on the panel. Yesterday's post concentrated on the implausibility of the AIA claim that its proposed at-grade system could carry as many passengers and do so nearly as quickly as the City’s elevated plan.

Today’s issue is safety, which we’ve previously noted has been ignored by the AIA. We’ll pick up with host Dan Boylan reading a question sent in by a viewer:

Boylan: “Commaaina wants to know via Twitter, Peter: 'The AIA ignores the poor safety of at-grade systems. Phoenix had 52 accidents in its first year. It mustn’t be built here.'”

Peter Vincent: “And the City has ignored the accidents and the safety record of, say, the model Vancouver SkyTrain system, and Mr. Okino has said to me personally that there’ve been no accidents there….”

Council Member Gary Okino: “I didn’t say there have been no accidents, but it’s not….”

Vincent: “…when Sean Hao’s Advertiser article upon research indicated there have been 10 accidental deaths in Vancouver, OK, so there are unfortunately accidents with any system. The good news, and being for a rail system here, rail has a very low incident rate compared to other modes of transportation. So rail, being elevated (or) at-grade is a much safer way to travel than most other ways.”

Upon Closer Examination

The viewer’s question specifically addressed at-grade’s relatively poor safety record by noting the Phoenix system’s accident-a-week rate in its first year of operation. How does the AIA’s Peter Vincent respond?

He completely avoids the obvious thrust of the at-grade safety issue and then obfuscates it by protesting that “there have been 10 accidental deaths in Vancouver….” His source is Honolulu Advertiser reporter Sean Hao, whose inaccurate reporting on rail and selective use of quotes has been noted in this blog.

We’ve made our own inquiries about Vancouver’s safety record. Doug Kelsey, president and chief executive officer of British Columbia Rapid Transit Company, Ltd., which operates and maintains the Vancouver SkyTrain, says there have been “zero accidents caused by the technology” on the system.

Kelsey says SkyTrain has learned from the few regrettable incidents on its system and installed an intrusion system that triggers an alarm when it detects someone falling off the platform. (SkyTrain was recognized late last year as “Best Organization” at the Fifth Annual Lieutenant Governor’s Awards for Public Safety – British Columbia’s highest safety honor.”)

What also comes through is that Vancouver's accidents have been "personal" in nature and not collisions, which is the major issue with at-grade transit. As City Transportation Services Director Wayne Yoshioka said at a January press conference:

“Let’s go back logically and look at this. You’re elevated. You’re totally separated from the roadway. You’re in a protected environment and completely separated out… What cars are flying at that level above the ground? And what people are flying through the air at that level above the ground? As opposed to an at-grade transist that’s crossing active streets with active vehicles turning in front of the train, with pedestrians crossing in front of the train?”

Perhaps the AIA’s representative thinks he’s doing his organization’s bidding well by sidestepping the obvious fact that no cars, no trucks and no buses have crashed with SkyTrain, but it’s even more obvious that he’s selling something that’s not true.

At-grade transit systems are much more prone to accidents than grade-separated systems. By rolling at-grade and elevated into the same broad “rail” category, Vincent blatantly misled the viewing public during last week’s program.

And that unfortunately characterizes the AIA’s campaign for at-grade rail here. As noted in yesterday’s post, the AIA pooh-poohed the time difference between an elevated system’s speed and that of a relatively slow at-grade experience.

But there is absolutely no way a train operating on the ground and traveling on this map’s red route can move through the heart of Honolulu at anything close to the speed of an elevated train using the blue route on the map. There’s just isn’t.

The AIA would do us a public service by ending its semantic tricks about the speed, safety, reliability and capacity of its proposed at-grade train. One small group of architects apparently holds aesthetics above all other considerations. (See our January 29 post for the AIA’s internal poll’s remarkable results showing that elevated actually received more support from the AIA’s membership than at-grade!)

The rest of us surely want safety to rank much higher on the priority scale than how the rail system “looks.”

The ROTC Drill Sergeant Had It Right: ‘You Can’t March Your Platoon Faster than the Slowest Man’

Funny how things said to you decades ago can come back like pearls of wisdom to put current issues in perspective. Take the architects’ insistence that Honolulu’s rail system could be built both at-grade and elevated.

About a million years ago, ROTC cadets at my Iowa high school heard our program’s active-duty sergeant shout out this nugget so often I can still hear his voice:

“Gentlemen, you can only march your platoon as fast as the slowest man!”

The message was absolutely clear. Try marching faster than your unit’s capability and you’ll end up with disorder and chaos. With that as background, here’s an exchange during last Thursday’s “Insights on PBS Hawaii” TV panel discussion show on the Honolulu rail project.

We started our review of the program a few days ago and now pick up the program during a discussion on whether the partially at-grade system proposed by the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects would have the same carrying capacity as the City’s proposed all-elevated 20-mile system between East Kapolei and Ala Moana Center. Host Dan Boylan directed a viewer’s question to Peter Vincent of the AIA's Rail Task Force:

Boylan: “Peter, someone wants to know: Does the light rail proposal change the per-hour capacity?”

Vincent: “Yes, somewhat, but it exceeds the demand. In other words, the persons per hour per direction in the EIS proposed by the City is 63 hundred. It was subsequently increased to 81 hundred. The (AIA proposal of) light rail transit – three cars of approximately 90 feet each running at 3-minute headways (the time between trains) – would be slightly over 9 thousand people. Maximum capacity if the headways were increased (sic) down to say a maximum of 2 minutes would go up to a capacity of 12 thousand passengers per hour per direction, so it exceeds the anticipation of the City.”

Councilman Gary Okino: “Logically it just doesn’t make sense. An (elevated) train that travels (an average of) 30 miles per hour, which can go 60 miles an hour, rather than a train on the ground that can average only 10 to 15 miles an hour, how can you say that has more capacity than the elevated system? Logically, it just doesn’t make sense.”

Vincent: “The system that was proposed by Phil Craig, the transportation consultant that we’ve been consulting with and (who) wrote a report that Kamehameha Schools, did quite an in-depth study, and his analysis – which requires further study, of course – it was detailed nonetheless, and based on 50 years experience and extremely detailed knowledge of transit systems across the world, recommended half elevated, half at-grade system. Most of the area that I showed in the picture earlier from East Kapolei coming into Waipahu could and certainly should be at grade. That’s going to run as fast as an elevated system because there’s virtually no interference there. Then the system in the highly congested area of Pearl City and going into the airport would be fully elevated and thereby traveling at the same exact speed of the proposed all-elevated heavy rail system, and then going at grade. So the difference in time going from East Kapolei to downtown is only 3 minutes more with the combination light rail elevated/at-grade system, and then it slows down a bit more – another 9 minutes going from in-town to Ala Moana Center."

City Managing Director Kirk Caldwell: “Councilman Okino said if you’re going at-grade in town and you go only 14 or 15 miles an hour, the rest of the system cannot go any faster than that, otherwise all the cars are going to be piling up against each other. The beauty of a grade-separated system, whether it’s elevated or underground, is no matter what’s happening on the ground, it can go consistently (an average of) 30 miles an hour. Every 3 minutes a train will come at rush hour, every 6 minutes non-rush hour and every 10 minutes during the very slow periods of time no matter what’s happening. But if you’re on the ground, you can go no faster than the slowest car in your system. Again, (what Vincent is saying) does not make sense. It sounds great, but when you think about it, it doesn’t make sense.”

Vincent: “It works in 34 other U.S. cities.”

Caldwell: “But it doesn’t go as fast. We’re paying for a system that’s fast and efficient. We’re trying to get (people) out of their cars who live in the ewa plain to come into town. If you don’t make it fast, if you don’t make it reliable and if you don’t make it efficient, they’re not going to get on it. They’re going to drive into town.”

Former Council member Gary Gill: “They’re not going to get on TheBoat (meaning a slow train) because it doesn’t run on time and sometimes it breaks down. So, let’s not do 'TheBoat thing.’”

Summary: Comments and claims made on a “live” television show come fast and sometimes furiously, and it takes transcriptions like this one to pick out the issues that require additional reflection. Peter Vincent’s assertion that at-grade rail’s headways (time between trains) could be 3 minutes or even only 2 minutes is one such issue.

Unlike architects, transit experts will tell you headways between trains driven by humans must be considerably greater than automated trains. Three minutes between trains with humans at the controls seems highly unrealistic, and Vincent’s suggestion that headways could be only 2 minutes for at-grade trains seems fanciful at best.

Another point Vincent made needs amplification – that at-grade trains could consist of three cars, each 90 feet long. Two hundred seventy feet (3 x 90) happens to be the approximate length of the shortest block in Chinatown, and an at-grade train can’t be longer than the shortest block to avoid blocking cross streets.

But the City’s elevated system can be longer than the shortest city block because trains would be completely unaffected by cross streets, so it’s obvious an elevated system with trains that each have greater capacity and operate with at shorter headways is much more efficient in moving large numbers of people than at-grade could ever be.

A third point is the proposal Vincent alluded to by New Jersey-based consultant Craig, whose suggested alignment of an at-grade system through the heart of downtown Honolulu and around the Iolani Palace-Capitol-City Hall complex would necessarily require slow-moving trains -- a point we made some months ago. Check out the map of Craig's proposed route at this link.

As Managing Director Caldwell said during the show, “…if you’re on the ground, you can go no faster than the slowest car….” That's pretty much what Sergeant Phillip Spinabella was trying to get across to his ROTC cadets decades ago.

Advertiser’s Front Page Resembles a Puffy Shirt; Like Seinfeld’s Garment, Stories Are All Puffed Up

Elaine (to Jerry): “You’re all puffed up! You look like the Count of Monte Cristo!” (Seinfeld episode, 9/23/93)

We usually fill this space with commentary on which rail technology is best for Honolulu, ongoing discussions on costs, reliability, safety, etc. But today the focus is on two remarkably weak “puffed up” stories in today’s Honolulu Advertiser.

Their above-the-fold headlines shout skepticism about the project: Rail falls further behind schedule (that’s the main story) and Planned transit hubs luring few investors.

Read these stories and see if you reach our conclusion – that they amount to a whole lot of empty space. For example, the investment story is explained in one 24-word paragraph that quotes City Councilman Nestor Garcia:

“It’s just too early. Once (groundbreaking) occurs then you might see action after that,” he said. “Local people are like that – seeing is believing.”

That pretty much says it all. The other story on construction delays quotes Council chairman Todd Apo with this “de-puffing” observation:

“Overall, the project is not starting as soon as we would have liked, but this does not show that there is a problem with the project itself. The FTA has already committed $1.55 billion to it. They have a draft of the EIS and they consider it a good project.”

Circumstances beyond the city’s control have delayed the project, and that's that. So what’s with this “view with alarm” style of journalism in the Advertiser’s news hole? The paper’s editorial page seems to be on an entirely different track, as seen in a February 4th editorial that lauded the FTA’s commitment.

Rail coverage by Honolulu’s two newspapers reminds us once again why it’s important to be a two-newspaper city. One continues to splash rail stories that have remarkably little heft to them, while the other seems content to report on the process without contributing hysteria.

TV Show Highlights EIS Process to Approve Rail; Panel Disputes AIA Claim Change Would be Minor

******************************************************** 7:30 pm Update: One hundred years ago today Los Angeles citizens were concerned about train safety, urged "Subway or Elevated Solution for Railroads"

Local public television’s one-hour public affairs show “Insights on PBS Hawaii” aired last night and was devoted to the Honolulu rail project. Host and moderator Dan Boylan’s guest panelists were Gary Okino, City Councilman and Transportation Committee chair; Gary Gill, former director of the State Office of Environmental Quality Control and former City Council member; Peter Vincent, American Institute of Architects’ Transit Task Force; Kiersten Faulkner, History Hawaii Foundation, and Kirk Caldwell, Honolulu Managing Director.

We’ll focus on the numerous issues discussed – including at-grade vs elevated safety – over the next few days and start with an exchange on process and whether the AIA’s assertion that a change of technology from “heavy” to “light rail” could be accomplished with minimum delay. We’ve transcribed the telecast and have attempted to quote everyone accurately, while taking some liberties to paraphrase when possible without disturbing the conversation’s thrust.

Gill: “Car-based transportation on a small island is just not where we need to be in the future. It spreads out the city way too far. It takes way more land than it should. For those who are concerned about how a rail or elevated system might look, I’d just ask him, ‘Can you look at the Halawa interchange?’ Here’s hundreds of acres with nothing but a spiral of concrete going around, and that’s what a car-based transportation system looks like.”

Vincent: “AIA Honolulu is absolutely and unequivocally pro-rail, and some people have felt that we’re trying to get it stopped… we are for the system... rail is appropriate for the (entire) country and specifically for Honolulu due to its narrow corridor between the mountains and the ocean. We don’t want to see it stopped. …We have major reservations about the heavy rail system, which is inflexible and does not lend itself well to expansion…. It should be changed to a light rail system, as has been done in some 34 other U.S. cities since 1985. We’re proposing a light rail system that is far more expandable, can run elevated. It could be the entire elevated segment as proposed by the City, in fact, but light rail has not had its day in court….”

Caldwell: “We’re ‘this close’ to finalizing our final FEIS, and now a group of architects is saying let’s come back and review the entire system, let’s do it differently. That means we’re not proceeding. That means you go back and start all over again…. That means four years probably in terms of delay. That means the legislation, which is looking at almost a half billion dollars we’ve collected in the excise tax surcharge, maybe being borrowed or actually taken away, in which case the federal government says we will not commit the one point five five billion that the Obama administration just said they will be committing to us in 2011, and the federal money may go away. That means we’re back to status quo. We have more roads, more highways, more pollution, more heating…. This discussion was had, and this man right here (Council member Okino) heard the discussion, he was part of the vote on what type of system to do, and that took place in 2006. It’s too late to have that debate now.”

Boylan: (turning to former OEQC director Gill). “As a man who knows the EIS function, is it too late? Would it be four more years if we went back….?”

Gill: “Well, through the EIS process you would probably have to submit an entirely new document. It certainly could take years, but the document itself is just one thing. The laws leading up to a funding mechanism, the decisions that would have to be taken on the City Council, it would take years.”

Vincent: “No, I disagree with that. It depends on what the change is. If there’s an alignment change, it does require a supplemental EIS, and that could take 6 months or a year. There are systems we’ve researched that have gone through major changes in their DEIS process, have taken approximately a year and are now in construction…. What we’re proposing actually is just a change to light rail, which is not even really discussed in the DEIS, that specific technology. So that technology change could happen without any revision, and the project could start as planned.

Gill: “I’m sorry, Peter, I don’t think so. It’s not discussed in that document. You can’t just slip it in between the draft and the final. I’m sorry, that would not be allowed. The federal government would not allow it. The state would not allow it.”

Caldwell: “At the forum that was hosted by the Governor in which Mr. Vincent was on the panel, they talked about putting half the system at-grade. The impacts are dramatically different at-grade than with an elevated system, and that’s where they said it would only take 6 months. We went back to the FTA and asked them if that was true. They said what former Council member Gary Gill said. It would take two years at a minimum, and they said we would not recommend doing a supplemental EIS but a full-blown EIS because the impacts are so dramatically different.”

Vincent: “But we’re not talking about the change to going at-grade. What we’re talking about is going from a heavy rail system to light rail, and that technology change is very minor and does not require revisions to the EIS. Therefore, that change could be made, and then, if portions were to go at-grade, there would be ample time to study those and amend the EIS.”

Caldwell: “So are you no longer supporting an at-grade system? I just want to get that clear. You were at one point.”

Vincent: “Portions of it, but we think it could start elevated with the change to light rail, which would allow more flexibility with no delay. Jobs could start now. There’d be more local jobs.”

Caldwell: “There would be delay, Peter. You admit it yourself.”

Okino: “…through the federal process, this is not a good thing to do. The federal process is very vigorous, and it approves a project to go ahead. It’s based on…cost-benefit analysis. If you put a system on the ground, you dramatically change the benefits of a system. You put a train on the ground, you change the speed of the thing. You can’t put a train on the ground and go 60 miles an hour (as if it were) elevated. So it changes the capacity. The cost. They downplay the cost of putting something on the ground as being cheaper. That has to go through a total analysis. I disagree that it’s gonna be cheaper, not in Honolulu. It’s gonna change all of the factors. It’s gonna change operating costs of this thing, because now you gotta put drivers on the train. I mean, there’s a whole bunch of things. It’s practically a new project once you make it touch the ground.”

Caldwell: “(An at-grade train) can go no faster than the fastest car, and during rush hour, a car goes 14 miles an hour and a bus 7, and you can’t have (a train) going faster unless it’s grade-separated.”

Vincent: (Holds up a photo of open land on the ewa plain) “If you’re on grade here, where the project is proposed to start, how fast can you go? And a light rail train can travel at the same speed as a heavy rail vehicle in this condition, and there’s three miles of this going from the ag lands in East Kapolei to…..”

Caldwell: “It looks like it’s crossing a road, so I assume it’s going to stop at some point.”

Okino: “The train travels at three-minute headways (separation) and it has to pass through the middle of downtown Honolulu, and I don’t care how clear it is out (on the ewa plain), that section in downtown Honolulu will dictate how the whole system operates.”

Summarizing: Gill, Okino and Caldwell effectively refuted Vincent’s attempts to minimize the delay of switching to a different technology, and we’re likely to see more views to contradict the AIA when the City Council delegation travels to Washington to meet with federal officials.

Vincent’s display of the photograph showing a portion of agriculture land on the ewa plain was confusing. If that’s where the AIA believes the system could be elevated (with the in-town section at-grade), why would he show the photo and imply light rail (code words for at-grade rail) could travel through this area as quickly as elevated rail?

Historic Hawaii Foundation’s Faulkner was not engaged in this portion of the debate, and we’ll report her comments later.

Rail Planning Includes Prediction of Oil Price Rise

Moving on after yesterday’s “inside baseball” journalism talk, we’re pleased to see the Honolulu Advertiser editorial today focus so positively on Honolulu rail and the energy issue: “Future shock: Oil won’t stay this cheap”

Bus ridership slipped 8 percent nationally and 2 percent in Honolulu in the third quarter of last year – in part, the reasoning goes, due to job loss during the recession and lower gasoline prices compared to the same period in 2008, when the price of oil price peaked at $147 per barrel.

Oil’s price today is about $79 and seems to be bouncing along in a high-70s/low-80s range, although the one-year trend is unmistakable. A year ago today, the price was in the mid-$30s per barrel.

Few serious thinkers about energy issues doubt that oil will eventually bounce back to much higher levels than today. Quoting from today’s editorial:

“China and India are slurping oil at a furious pace, just when global supplies appear to be waning. The latest warning on this front came this month from a British task force on energy security. In its report, ‘The Oil Crunch,’ the business group warns that supplies may start a serious decline in as little as five years.”

That will be about half-way through construction of Honolulu rail. The Advertiser concludes:

“So we need to keep our eyes on the prize: building a reliable transportation system that will serve the needs of our children and grandchildren.”

Less reliance on imported oil will mean a better life for our grandkids all around, including their commuting life.

Honolulu Weekly Shifts Rail Coverage Duties

Ragnar Carlson, editor of Honolulu Weekly, writes in the new issue out today that he no longer will be personally involved in the Weekly’s coverage of the Honolulu rail project.

That’s a shame. Ragnar’s a professional journalist and excellent writer, and his decision keeps him from covering the largest construction project in the state’s history and one of the most contentious issues here in decades.

But it’s the right decision. Ragnar is my son, and I’m a communications consultant to Parsons Brinckerhoff, the City’s prime contractor on the project. Although both of us have studiously avoided discussing rail, that’s not the issue.

The issue is an “appearance of a conflict of interest.” By taking himself off the story and assigning overall responsibility to Managing Editor Adrienne LaFrance, Ragnar has removed that appearance.

As he writes today, “The beat will be in good hands.”

California Family Narrowly Avoids Train Crash; Rail Safety Must Be Priority 1 for Honolulu Project

One can be easily be distracted by politics and other issues involved in the Honolulu rail project and its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) that is nearing completion. Aesthetics and the project’s integration in the urban environment are legitimate areas of discussion, and they have been discussed.

But we’re determined here to keep the focus on one particular issue – safety. If we’re going to spend billions on a new way to move people through the city, building it with the least possible potential to injure residents ought to have a pretty high priority, wouldn’t you say?

Residents of Phoenix, AZ are increasingly concerned about safety now that their year-old at-grade rail system has recorded 52 accidents in its first year of service. Honolulu’s system has the best possible safety factor already in its design; it will be elevated and completely separated from cars, trucks, bicycles and pedestrians.

Honolulu’s crowded urban environment would be an accident waiting to happen if commuter trains were running on tracks that travel along streets, through intersections and over pedestrian crosswalks. There’s no reason to believe Oahu residents somehow would be immune to the accident-prone experience of mainland drivers.

Which brings us to yet another car-train crash – this one in Folsom, CA. A local woman fell asleep yesterday while driving near light-rail train tracks. The car ended up stuck on the tracks, and bystanders pulled her and her two draughts, 10 and 7, from the car minutes before a train smashed into the car. No one was injured, including five people aboard the train, which was slightly damaged but continued in service after the accident.

So that’s the reality of at-grade rail. Human error can’t be erased from the human experience, and accidents like this one, the one-a-week crashes in Phoenix and last week’s bus-train crash in Houston, TX would be the inevitable result of building Honolulu’s system at ground level.

Not to mention that at-grade rail would be slower, less frequent and unreliable compared to an elevated system. But rest assured, we do mention that, too.

Mayor’s Youth Summit on Rail Hits a High Note

In a word, SUCCESS! Today’s Youth Rail Summit at Leeward Community College attracted a couple hundred elementary, high school and university students, and if you can judge a gathering by smiles and enthusiasm, this one hit the jackpot.

They came primarily from the leeward Oahu -- neighborhoods that will be served by Honolulu’s rail system, but Waialua on the North Shore was represented, too. So was Kailua and places in between.

A lunchtime jam by Kolohe Kai was a big attraction, and so was the prospect of winning an Apple iPod Touch or HP Netbook, but the breakout sessions showed how committed these youth are to the concept of safe, affordable, reliable and frequent rail transit in Honolulu.

We’ll let the photographs tell the story of today’s Summit. To paraphrase the participants: Go Rail Go! Here's a YouTube video showing teens riding the Virtual Train.

Honowai Elementary of Waipahu showed up strong.

Tascha Kapu (left) and Chrstina Freitas get their entry "bracelets."

Kathryn Pagaragan of Farrington High School is congratulated by City Managing Director Kirk Caldwell for her 2nd place finish in the Student Art Contest.

Hello, Farrington!

The magic of "green screen video" gave students the thrill of a virtual train ride.

A little greenery here, a little techno trickery there, and suddenly these students are riding a train.

There's nothing "virtual" about this gang's enthusiasm! From left: Heidi Neidhardt, Tracy Humann, Janee Lee and Mickey Monis.

This quartet couldn't stop trying out the green screen moves.

Kolohe Kai was the noontime attraction.

Oh, to be young -- and famous, too!

Today's "Kolohe Kai Fan Club."

Kolohe Kai

Afternoon breakout sessions broke out tons of ideas to energize youth for rail.

All together now: Go Farrington Governors!

The day's last act -- lining up for backpacks.

And the lucky winner: Riana-Lynn Laa of Nanakuli High.

Riana-Lynn and her Nanakuli High classmates.

Keep reading below for Bob Nakata's full-on endorsement of Honolulu rail!

If You Read Nothing Else about Rail, Read This!

We know the typical Oahu resident is probably “up to here” with all the talk about rail. “I thought everything was settled” and “just build it already” are typical reactions when rail comes up among people who don’t have professional pride invested one way or another in the project.

So we’re trying to be helpful in encouraging you to read one more piece – just one more commentary on why Honolulu and all of Oahu will benefit from building the rail system.

Former legislator Bob Nakata, a minister and president of Faith Action for Community Equity (FACE), has a commentary in today’s Honolulu Advertiser. Nakata and FACE are well-known for their committed positions on numerous issues, development proposals and causes.

It could be significant that FACE publicly supports rail as the Governor seems aggressively hesitant to approve the project. Nakata’s high-profile pro-rail endorsement may help give the Governor the “cover” she needs to accept the Final EIS for the largest spending project in state history.

“I hope we can put aside the momentary politics and move forward quickly,” Nakata writes, summing up the circumstances that threaten this project. And though Nakata doesn't address the at-grade vs elevated issue that seems to have captured the Governor's attention, any delay in building the system above ground as planned will surely kill it, for reasons we've mentioned repeatedly at Yes2Rail that you're invited to read by clicking on our "aggregation site" link, at right.

76 Percent of State House Urge Governor Lingle’s Quick Acceptance of Honolulu Rail Project’s FEIS

Representatives Mark Takai (Newtown, Waiau, Pearl City, Waimalu), Tom Brower (Waikiki, Ala Moana), Sharon Har (Royal Kunia, Makakilo, Kapolei, Kalaeloa) and Joey Manahan (Sand Island, Mokauea, Kalihi Kai, Kapalama)

Thirty-nine of the 51 members of the Hawaii State House of Representatives have signed a letter urging Governor Linda Lingle to accept the Honolulu Rail project’s Final EIS when it reaches her desk.

A delegation of House members made the announcement at Mayor Mufi Hannemann’s rail forum this afternoon in the State Capitol’s auditorium. It’s the same venue used by the Governor three weeks ago when she invited local architects to make a case for at-grade rail in Honolulu rather than the City’s elevated system.

Even more remarkable perhaps than the overwhelming support of the House for quick acceptance of the FEIS was the 100-percent participation of neighbor island representatives. Hannemann (at right) said the neighbor islanders’ endorsement shows they understand the entire state will benefit from the Honolulu rail project.

Rep. Mark Takai lead the effort to obtain the members’ signatures and told the standing-room-only audience, “We can’t give up the opportunity to receive $1.55 billion in federal funds.” Federal Department of Transportation officials said last week Honolulu is virtually assured of receiving that amount in federal funds for the project.

Rep. Sharon Har, whose constituents live in communities near the western end of the rail system’s route, said the Second City concept on the ewa plain was conceived decades ago, but severe traffic congestion has burdened residents of the area.

“The dream of a Second City has become a nightmare because of government’s failure to build adequate infrastructure,” she said, adding that rail transit will be a crucial part of the required infrastructure.

Hannemann said Honolulu rail is the only shovel-ready project in the state that could add 4,000 jobs to the economy in 2010. That number would grow steadily to 17,000 within five years, he said, and he emphasized the significance of last week’s endorsement of the project by DOT Secretary Ray LaHood and FTA Administrator Peter Rogoff.

The Mayor added, “Some who have been in the transportation business a long time say they’ve never heard such a strong statement and commitment” from federal officials for a transit project even before the FEIS has been formally completed.

House Letter’s Highlights

“We, the undersigned members of the Hawaii House of Representatives, strongly request that you review and accept the final Environmental Impact Statement for the Honolulu Rail Transit Project in a timely manner once the document is released by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).

“Along with dealing with our transportation woes, the Honolulu rail transit project is the biggest economic stimulus project on the horizon that will provide thousands of jobs and create tax revenue for our state and county governments to fund essential services currently being cut.

“The Obama Administration, in its budget submission to Congress, earlier this month gave the Honolulu rail project a vote of confidence by requesting $55 million in federal funds for rail in FY 2011. Peter Rogoff, head of the (FTA), told the local media his agency will sign an agreement by next year to provide another $1.55 billion in construction funds….

“The FTA informed the city that if any decision is made to change the rail system from elevated to at-grade, the FTA would have to start the environmental review process again. Our rail project has gone through five years of extensive planning and environmental review. As the FTA stated, making changes to the project now would put it back to square one and possibly halt the project indefinitely.

“The bottom line is that the FTA and the U.S. Department of Transportation see nothing at this point to stop Honolulu’s rail transit project from continuing to go forward and are committed to continue working with the city to help make rail transit a reality for Honolulu.

“Ultimately, Oahu residents in November 2008 voted in support of the rail project. The people have spoken. There is no major construction project other than rail that is shove-ready. The longer you delay Oahu’s and our state’s economic recovery, the longer you will leave our workers unemployed and struggling during this economic recession. WE, the undersigned, therefore request that you act expeditiously in accepting the final Environmental Impact Statement once it is released by the Federal Transit Administration.”

Part of standing-room-only crowd in the Auditorium.